Morrowind talk:Artifacts

Technically

Do we really need to have the word "Technically" start every item note involving a quest as the means for obtaining said item? I don't see any need for that word.Evirus 14:33, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, technically, the word only appears twice on the page, so it's a bit of an exaggeration. But I agree that it's not entirely necessary. Why don't you change it then? --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 15:00, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Armor Ratings

I'm not sure, but I think the armor ratings are either wrong or the Morrowind GOTY has different ratings than other platforms/versions. Such as the Daedric cuirass you get from Therana; this page says something over 250 while the game shows only 24. Either this page needs some reformatting or maybe give a note that the armor rating vary between games. --Werdnanoslen^Talk 18:10, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Well, the Armor Rating depends on the heavy/medium/light armor skill of the player... Are you sure this isn't where you're getting screwed up on? Or are you talking about base armor rating? The table lists the maximum Armor rating, not the base... Anyways, as both an x-box (non-GOTY) and PC player, the values look right to me. Of course, I haven't played the x-box version in at least two years, so my memory may be a bit bad, but I've never noticed or heard of any difference between the versions in that respect. --Ratwar 18:21, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Ok, I thought they were base armor ratings. I don't have a high heavy armor skill, so that's why it was low. --Werdnanoslen^Talk 18:28, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I think these are still wrong - how exactly are these values calculated? I think the number in the CS should be what's shown here, and the formula for multiplying it by your skill or whatnot should be given at the top, rather than just assuming the player has 100 in the skill. Just seems wrong to do it this way. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 17:52, 29 November 2006 (EST)

The armor rating formula is as follows: Armor Rating = Round(Base Armor Rating * Skill / 300). I think it's best to keep the AR for a skill of 100 because it's easier to calculate your AR: AR = Max AR * Skill%. --DrPhoton 03:24, 30 November 2006 (EST)

I agree, it should definitely be for skill=100, so you can see what the item is capable of, and yes the calculation's easier that way too. Perhaps a note at the top for reference that the max possible AR is 333? Anoriega 20:39, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Linkable entries

Question: Why is using the ID field for sub-page linking better than the Linkable Entry template? To use the ID field, you actually have to edit the page and look to see what the ID is. While Linkable Entry just uses the same text that actualy displays, making it much easier to get links right without actually having to search the code on the page to figure out what ID to link to. I propose changing all the links on this page (and similar pages) to Linkable Entries just for ease of use. It's really annoying having to actually look at the page source just to see what the links should be. --TheRealLurlock 09:54, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

In some ways, the table id field and the Linkable Entry template are doing the same thing: both add an "id" attribute to the HTML code which can then be used as an anchor (i.e., a place in the text you can link to). The reasons I introduced Linkable Entry template are:

• The text only has to be entered once (reduces possibility of typos, etc)
• The URL encoding necessary to convert plain text into a form that can be used in a URL is automatic. So "Amulet of Admonition" is turned into "Amulet_of_Admonition"; "Arobar's Amulet" is turned into "Arobar's_Amulet"; etc., without the editor having to know anything about the process.

For clarification, this same URL encoding is done at the other end by the wiki. So [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Amulet of Admonition]] is identical to [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Amulet_of_Admonition]]. Therefore, changing from ids to Linkable Entries doesn't actually change most of the links to this page. The only links that would need to be modified are those that include apostrophes (') or other punctuation.

If the ids were to be taken out of this page and everything changed over to Linkable Entries, I'd suggest making it so that all existing links continue to work. All that this would require is that for names that include punctuation, an extra parameter be used in the Linkable Entry template, e.g., {{Linkable Entry|Arobar's Amulet|exname=Arobars Amulet}}. --Nephele 11:32, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Even though I wrote this system in this page, I'm in favor of converting to the Linkable Entry template, but the links to the entries must be corrected at the same time. I prefer doing this than using e.g., {{Linkable Entry|Arobar's Amulet|exname=Arobars Amulet}}, since, as TheRealLurlock says, it is much easier to get links right without actually having to search the code on the page to figure out what ID to link to. --DrPhoton 13:42, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Well, I went and did Nephele's suggestion - As I understand it, links will now work either way. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) We could go and correct all the links to this page, but I'm not sure it's necessary. --TheRealLurlock 14:05, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Yep, the links should work either way, so Morrowind:Artifacts#Arobar's Amulet, Morrowind:Artifacts#Arobars Amulet, and Morrowind:Artifacts#Arobars_Amulet all work and take you to the same place. To me that seems safer (and faster) than trying to find all the existing non-apostrophe links and changing them. --Nephele 16:17, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

Bitter cup

I got ripped off because I had an atribute with 100 so I just got -20 to luck. Is that supposed to happen?

The Bitter Cup raises your highest attribute by 20 and lowers your lowest attribute by 20.In this case your lowest attribute must have been luck.The Bitter Cup cannot raise your attributes above 100,So that is why your 100 attribute wasn't affected.

Eltonbrand

Here's what it looks like when you receive Eltonbrand from Sirilonwe, in case anyone wants to see the messages:

Click to view full

Martext 22:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Category titling

Okay, thisa may be a meaningless question to anyone else, but I find it really disturbing to just say "Blunts One Hand." Can we make this "One-Handed Blunt Weapons" or something of the sort, and the same for the other weapons...just to make it more professional. Somercy 13:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I have no problem with that. The reason I did it the other way is because of the category systems - One-handed blunt weapons will be listed in the Category:Morrowind-Weapons-Blunts One Hand category. This way when you look at Category:Morrowind-Weapons, Blunt One Hand is right next to Blunt Two Hand. If it were the other way, they'd be alphabetized by One-Hand/Two-Hand rather than by their weapon class, which I think is less useful. (Also I was copying the organizational scheme used by Oblivion.) But I guess for the headers on the page, they don't have to match the category names. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 14:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Eltonbrand

I've done the quest to obtain Goldbrand and then simply dropped enough gold to have exactly 11171 coins. After this Goldbrand changed into Eltonbrand without ever doing the Vampire quest.

The Eltonbrand exchange is handled by a script, which is separate from the dialogue in the quest. This script should only be run at the moment the quest is completed and should only check once. It's possible that a third party mod might have made some alteration to make it run at other times, but under normal circumstances, the game as released will only do the exchange during this quest, and at no other time. You might check to see if it's some mod that caused this. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:33, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Extra Spear

Hi all I'm new to this, but I would just like to say I found a spear called Greed in the Telvanni Vaults in Vivec. It was something like "Constant effect Drain Personality 20pts, Spell Absorption 20pts." It was just lying on the wall near one of the back walls. It looked like an ebony spear. Maybe someone wants to add this to the new artifacts page? I don't know how to, and don't have an account. Credit Overseer.Prime plz!

First of all, it's not an artifact. By our definition, an artifact must have a unique appearance, and Greed looks identical to a Silver Spear (not Ebony). The Artifacts page is currently out of date in this respect in that it includes many items which are not artifacts. An updated version has been put together at Morrowind:Artifacts/new, but we're not ready to change over yet due to the large number of pages that link here which would have to be corrected. Second, Greed is already covered on Unique Weapons, so you haven't discovered something that we didn't know about. Sorry to disappoint, but this game has been out for quite some time, and has a Construction Set where you can see all the data, so it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to find something new in it by now. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 22:41, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Random loot and duplicate items,do they need to be here?

There are some items listed here that have more then one example existing in the game,such as the Sword of White Woe,or the items that appear only in random loot,such as the Helm of Holy Fire,Succor of Indoril or Spirit of Indoril,which can only be found in random loot.I know they have good enchantments,but I think that to be an artifact,an item should be static and unique,along with having good enchantments or defense/damage ratings.What do you think? - The Great Duck

There is a new page being built. Please read the message at the top of the article. --DrPhoton 03:23, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Azura's Star

What happened with Azura's Star? Was it bad editing or just a glitch in the wiki formatting? Also, can anyone fix it? Darth Cronus 21:56, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I've done some tests and there's nothing wrong with Azura's Star, or the Shoes of St. Rilms, or any of the last artifacts that are not properly included. It looks like it is more likely something to do with the page being too long or calling too many templates. --DrPhoton 04:13, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I've done a quick test of removing the first few items listed, and the last section is then shown correctly. I think it's because it transcludes all of the artifact pages as templates, and they themselves contain a number of templates, so there are ultimately too many templates on the page. There was a similar problem on the Oblivion:Places page not long ago.--Gaebrial 05:39, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I was modelling this after Oblivion:Artifacts, but there's obviously more artifacts in Morrowind, so maybe that won't work as well. Maybe if we separate the page into Morrowind:Artifact Weapons, Morrowind:Artifact Armor, Morrowind:Artifact Clothing, and Morrowind:Artifact Other, much like the other item pages, we can avoid the problem. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 09:23, 6 November 2007 (EST)

OK, I finally tried a novel approach to this whole too-many-templates problem: I researched on wikipedia to find out what the problem really is and what they recommend doing to fix it ;) The problem is not the number of templates but the cumulative size of the page as all the templates are expanded. The gory details are all here. One interesting detail is that the HTML for the page includes embedded comments documenting that there's a problem. There are six error messages stating:

<!-- WARNING: template omitted, pre-expand include size too large -->

And a summary message of the page's cumulative size during the template expansion process:

<!-- 
Pre-expand include size: 2097104 bytes
Post-expand include size: 580287 bytes
Template argument size: 199746 bytes
Maximum: 2097152 bytes
-->

I'm going to make a few quick fixes based on wikipedia's recommendations to fix some of the immediate problems cropping up here and elsewhere. Then probably this evening I'll try to find time to post a more comprehensive message to the Community Portal. --Nephele^Talk 15:22, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Volendrung

Where is Volendrung? It has been in all four of the elder scrolls, along with necromancers amulet. — Unsigned comment by 76.9.76.184 (talk)

I'm guessing that it is not currently listed on the artifacts page because Volendrung is not enchanted in Morrowind. However, there are multiple links of the form Morrowind:Artifacts#Volendrung, none of which currently work (e.g., on Lore:Artifacts, Lore:Malacath, Morrowind:Corprus Cure). So it seems like either Volendrung should be included in the article (old format or new format) or else all those links need to be fixed. I'll leave it to the Morrowind experts to figure out what makes sense ;) --Nephele^Talk 03:11, 18 November 2007 (EST)

It probably should be added - if Wings of the Queen of Bats is allowed (an item not found in the game, and with a generic enchantment), then this should be as well. Usefullness does not determine an object's artifact status. (E.g. Fork of Horripilation.) As for the Necromancer's Amulet, in Morrowind, this uses the same graphics as a standard Exquisite Amulet. Thus it does not qualify for artifact status and is listed on Unique Clothing. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 11:16, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Ring of surroundings

For some strange reason I can't sell my Ring of surroundings to the Mornhold museum of artifacts. It's in the Artifacts book but I can't sell it! I can't figure it out!

Not all of the artifacts in the book can be sold to the museum. A list of the items that can be sold is found on the Tribunal services page.

Problem Saving Page

[Discussion moved from the Community Portal]

I've just tried to make a minor edit on Morrowind:Artifacts, and I got a blank page in return after waiting for a while after clicking 'Save'. I've attempted to purge the page, assuming that it is now glitched. I suppose this page is a problem because virtually its entire content is transcluded. --Gaebrial 09:26, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah I get the same when I log on anonymously. Can we continue this here, please? It's easier to keep all the discussion in one place. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:38, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, scratch that. This seems to be a bug in Opera. The page loads okay in both Firefox (2.0.0.11) and IE (6.0.2900.2180) - both anonymously. If you view the source in Opera (9.5.8827) you'll see it's all there - it's just not rendering. Unless you're getting a different result? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 09:46, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.11, and I'm trying to edit the page while logged in. I get a blank page when trying to save the edit. --Gaebrial 09:49, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Oh... well that's nothing that purge is going to fix then. Looks like you're going to have to edit the individual pages rather than the containing one until the timeout is increased. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:00, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I've been editing this page lately with IE (7.0.5730.11) and didn't have any problems, except that it takes a loooong time to load and a loooong time to save. Gaebrial, if you tell me what you want to do, I can do it for you. --DrPhoton 02:56, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Well, like I said, it was just a minor thing. I was trying to remove the '----' from under the 'Armor' and 'Clothing' headers, as they create a weird kind of double underlining. I've just tried again, and it still won't work. --Gaebrial 03:10, 6 February 2008 (EST)

I'm afraid I'm also having the same problems now, but with Morrowind:Artifacts/new. I get ta completely blank page after waiting for a long time. Since this page is virtually identical to Morrowind:Artifacts, I guess it's the same problem Gaebrial is having. --DrPhoton 04:14, 6 February 2008 (EST)

(outdent) I think we might have to look at splitting that page up. It's currently about 350K of text when fully displayed and is obviously putting a strain on the server. How about a split into Weapons, Armor and Clothing? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 05:02, 6 February 2008 (EST)

This sounds good to me. --DrPhoton 08:12, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Any particular preference for naming the separate pages? Artifacts/Weapons, Artifacts-Weapons, Artifact Weapons, Weapon Artifacts, sort of thing? --Gaebrial 06:13, 7 February 2008 (EST)

The one I prefer is "Weapon Artifacts" or even "Weaponry Artifacts", but I think I'd go for Artifacts/Weapons so that the three pages are kept together and the Artifacts page can be used as a menu for its sub-pages. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 06:35, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I would go for "Weapon Artifacts" rather than subpages, as these have been avoided in the wiki (except for descriptions and other template transclusions). BTW, shouldn't we be discussing this at Morrowind talk:Artifacts? --DrPhoton 08:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Moved.

If we move the weapons, armor, and clothing to separate pages, and just link to them from this page, do we do the same with the 'Other' section, or do we leave that on this page? --Gaebrial 08:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I've split out the weapons, armor, and clothing. In lieu of a response to the above question, I've left the 'Other' section on this page. --Gaebrial 03:40, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Nice one, Gaebrial. I think that's much better and hopefully solves all the timeout problems. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 04:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Screenshots

These Artifact pages currently show images captured from the Construction Set. In order to comply with policy/guidlines on images, I'm considering adding a NeedsImage tag to flag these pages as needing in-game screenshots. If there are no objections, that is. – KJR1012 ^{Talk Email Contribs} 07:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea. I've been considering it myself so I definitely have no objections. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:45, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Since the image size came up in Morrowind talk:Lord's Mail (artifact), I went ahead and squared them and added backounds. Do we still need in-game images now? --Benould^•T•C 17:08, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Formatting artifact pages

It might be my OCD kicking in, but maybe there should be a universal format for the artifact pages to follow? I was just trying to go through and add the details on selling to the The Museum as the Task List suggests, but ran into problems when there wasn't an existing Notes section for me to edit. (I am far too lazy to register an account.)

So, does anyone have any input on a proper format that includes location, images, enchantments, any involved quests (including the Museum thingy that inspired this discussion), in-game contradictions, etc. for them to follow? Things seem far too haphazardly placed as they are. 98.122.20.27 22:05, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

There already is a format being used for the artifact pages -- in particular, the Artifact Summary template that is being used to provide the image, the details of the artifact enchantment, along with the other details that need to be provided on every artifact page. So I'm not altogether clear what else needs to be defined in terms of the format, or what is haphazard about the current layout. If there are pages that need notes added but don't currently have a Notes section, you are free to edit the page and add the new section -- even if you don't have an account. --Nephele^Talk 22:19, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

add what torasa aram says ? :)

everytime you give her an artifact she talks about them — Unsigned comment by Perroel (talk • contribs) on 10 jun 2011

The Yagrum Bagarn descriptions are on some of the artifact pages. The Tarasa Aram descriptions could be added the same way. --Brf 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)